r/Music • u/ebradio • 10h ago

article Taylor Swift sparks chart-blocking accusations with new “Patient Zero” alternate versions

https://www.pastemagazine.com/music/taylor-swift/taylor-swift-sparks-chart-blocking-accusations-with-new-patient-zero-alternate-versions
3.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.4k

u/AnAussiebum 10h ago

Charts should just ban alternative versions from being listed. Or give them one remix/deluxe edition, only. If the majority of the album has not changed it just shouldn't be considered.

There, problem solved.

95

u/bjnono001 9h ago

Then Olivia wouldn’t even be in contention, lol

251

u/flashb4cks_ 9h ago

Then so be it. It's so annoying that successful artists are inflating numbers.

-19

u/Slight-Owl4300 9h ago edited 7h ago

How are they inflating numbers if people want to buy and listen to the variants though?

Edit- why am I getting downvoted? I don't care about the down votes but just curious why.

39

u/FettuccineAlfonzo 9h ago

Because they weren’t produced artistically for a reason. Their entire existence is to boost chart performance of the original song.

-15

u/adnansbae95 9h ago

Weren’t produced artistically? What does that mean? Taylor recorded new vocals for both the piano and acoustic versions and then obviously changed up the instrumental too

7

u/BeansArePastaSauce 6h ago

Yes physically new audio was recorded, but not for artistic merit. Can anyone with more patience than I have explain this better?

14

u/Mr_Puddintaters Tame Impala Glazer 8h ago

For the sole purpose of boosting chart numbers.

-15

u/adnansbae95 8h ago

So, let me get this straight, when Taylor records alternative versions it’s for the sole purpose of boosting chart numbers but when everyone else does it…?

15

u/Mr_Puddintaters Tame Impala Glazer 8h ago

It’s for the sole purpose of boosting chart numbers, yes.

Edit: For example I love Tame Impala and I can easily say that the Dracula Remix feat. Jennie was for the sole purpose of boosting chart numbers.

-17

u/adnansbae95 8h ago

🤷🏻‍♀️

17

u/Mr_Puddintaters Tame Impala Glazer 8h ago

Idk why this is hard for Swifties to understand lol it’s the entire industry and Taylor does it more than others.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/PersonalAmbassador 8h ago

Do other artists release piano and acoustic versions of a single from a special edition album?

4

u/adnansbae95 7h ago

Yeah, they do? lol everyone does. Maybe not piano and acoustic but multiple versions of a single abosolutely

-11

u/pinkwonderwall 8h ago

Just because it doesn’t meet your artistic standards doesn’t mean it’s not art.

21

u/hotlibramess 8h ago

So you think people who bought all of the midnights albums so they could make that fuck ass clock are listening to those records?

It’s all so wasteful. Just a bunch of plastic shit for landfills.

-5

u/Slight-Owl4300 8h ago

Do you think everyone who buys vinyl records actually plays them regularly? 

Some people buy music to listen to it, others buy it to collect it, and some do both. That isn't unique to Taylor Swift. 

Whether someone plays a record 100 times or displays it on their wall doesn't change the fact that they willingly purchased it. 

That's a legitimate sale, not an inflated number. You can criticize the environmental impact of vinyl, which is a fair conversation, but that's an entirely different topic and not what OP's original post was about.

And for what it's worth, I'm not a huge defender of all the variants either. I don't love the waste they produce. But Taylor wouldn't keep releasing them if people weren't buying them, so at some point we also have to acknowledge the role consumers play in creating that demand. That said, I don't fault people for wanting to collect unique editions of albums they love. And let's be honest, collecting multiple versions of vinyl records is hardly something exclusive to Swifties.

10

u/hotlibramess 8h ago

Buying a bunch of plastic that you don’t intend to do anything with is stupid and wasteful.

Taylor swift is the source of so much pollution for SO many reasons that it’s honestly disgusting.

-2

u/Slight-Owl4300 8h ago

Again, now you're arguing something different. This post was about charts and variants.

There are lots of things people collect that can be considered stupid and wasteful, and can lead to waste and pollution but this post wasn't about the environmental impacts of variants.

4

u/hotlibramess 8h ago

Yeah you’re right I did change directions.

But these two things are related. Multiple variant sales and multiple variant releases and charting.

It all overinflates numbers.

1

u/Slight-Owl4300 8h ago

My point is that I don't think it overinflates the numbers. The fans buying these variants are also genuinely listening to the music. If the charts are measuring sales and streams, Taylor is clearly delivering both. Other artists need to figure out how to grow their fan bases and encourage people to buy and listen to their music if they want to compete. And I agree that variants encourage additional purchases, but those are still legitimate sales.

-7

u/FakeBobPoot 8h ago

Is it actually annoying?

18

u/whosthere1989 9h ago

If they allowed a remix then yes she would.

15

u/Dry-Mongoose-5804 9h ago

A remix is an alternative version. Olivia didn’t even do a new recording for the remix she just slapped on a Chappell verse on the original version.

52

u/whosthere1989 9h ago

Doing remixes for a single version of a song isn’t some new tactic to manipulate charts. It’s been around for forever. And like the original comment said—that’s why it’d make sense to allow ONE alternative version or remix of songs.

Think of all the iconic singles that were remixes because the album version was never released as a single.

-16

u/Dry-Mongoose-5804 8h ago

You think acoustic versions are some new thing? At least Taylor re-records the whole song. Instead of you slapping on a new verse of the old song then selling it.

7

u/crimsonpostgrad 8h ago

that depends on what song she’s releasing lmfao. i love taylor but she definitely has remixes she just reuses the original vocals for. olivia’s remix was to add chappells verse, and olivia recorded vocals for it specifically, bc she added ad libs and backing vocals for chappells verse.

1

u/whosthere1989 6h ago

Acoustic versions of songs used to mean an actual acoustic recorded version of a song. Not a pre recorded master vocal track slapped over poorly produces overly polished acoustic sounding studio instruments

Like—look at the acoustic unplugged version of “Layla’s vs the studio version. That’s a real acoustic version of a song.

15

u/hotlibramess 8h ago

I mean they wrote the track together and it was remixed so what’s the problem? It’s a different song.

0

u/BeansArePastaSauce 6h ago

Let’s not forget all the things TS sells that’s “slapped” together. I constantly find all her poorly made merch at Goodwill.

1

u/ChadQuaza 8h ago

not to state an opinion on olivia's case, but whether or not a remix should count has to be a case-by-case basis - sometimes a remix is barely any different and just with a new verse (like old town road with billy ray cyrus), sometimes it's practically a completely new song under the same name (like many of the tracks off the 1000 gecs remix album)

1

u/solidsnake4933 3h ago

Who said anything about Olivia? Rules should apply to everyone equally.